Plant hopper nymph

Lord Vetinari

A tiny plant hopper nymph with afterburner. all shots focus stacked using zerene.
Brian v.

Stumblebum

GREAT! Love it!lust

Lord Vetinari

Stumblebum wrote: »

GREAT! Love it!lust

Thanks SB - I rather like these little characters
Brian v.

e6filmuser

Brian,

I agree that they are irresistible.

Is it really worth stacking for such a narrow DOF?

Harold

Lord Vetinari

e6filmuser wrote: »

Brian,

I agree that they are irresistible.

Is it really worth stacking for such a narrow DOF?

Harold

Thanks Harold.
Re the stacking - I love detail so tend to shoot at fairly open apertures to avoid too much diffraction softening. In many cases this would not me the DOF I want, so I tend to focus stack to get it back.
As a guide I tend to shoot at apertures which give an apparent aperture of around F22- F30 on a 1.6 crop camera. eg F11 set at 1:1 gives an apparent aperture of F22.

Brian V.

e6filmuser

Lord Vetinari wrote: »

Thanks Harold.
Re the stacking - I love detail so tend to shoot at fairly open apertures to avoid too much diffraction softening. In many cases this would not me the DOF I want, so I tend to focus stack to get it back.
As a guide I tend to shoot at apertures which give an apparent aperture of around F22- F30 on a 1.6 crop camera. eg F11 set at 1:1 gives an apparent aperture of F22.

Brian V.

Thanks, Brian.

Very interesting.

Something not mentioned very often is that, certainly in the 1980s, and probably going back several decades, (e.g. SLR) lenses were optimised at moderate apertures. This would vary with model of lens, some being at f8, others at f5.6, a few at f11, and I tend to use lenses (including enlarger lenses) of that era.

Lenses of the digital age seem to be mostly about wide apertures, as are certain specialist legacy lenses, never intended for photographic use and much-loved by stackers.

Harold

Lord Vetinari

e6filmuser wrote: »

Thanks, Brian.

Very interesting.

Something not mentioned very often is that, certainly in the 1980s, and probably going back several decades, (e.g. SLR) lenses were optimised at moderate apertures. This would vary with model of lens, some being at f8, others at f5.6, a few at f11, and I tend to use lenses (including enlarger lenses) of that era.

Lenses of the digital age seem to be mostly about wide apertures, as are certain specialist legacy lenses, never intended for photographic use and much-loved by stackers.

Harold

This is not really too much to do with the optimal aperture for a lens in normal use to obtain good resolution across the photo- that tends to be around F5.6 to F8 for most lenses. This is more about the loss of resolution at apertures around F16 in normal use due to diffraction.
As I mentioned above the apparent aperture goes up as a function of magnification so F8 in normal use becomes F16 at 1:1, F24 at 2:1 etc. The more magnification you generate either by lenses or by cropping (including using small sensor cameras) gives more and more diffraction softening.
Brian v.

e6filmuser

Lord Vetinari wrote: »

This is not really too much to do with the optimal aperture for a lens in normal use to obtain good resolution across the photo- that tends to be around F5.6 to F8 for most lenses. This is more about the loss of resolution at apertures around F16 in normal use due to diffraction.
As I mentioned above the apparent aperture goes up as a function of magnification so F8 in normal use becomes F16 at 1:1, F24 at 2:1 etc. The more magnification you generate either by lenses or by cropping (including using small sensor cameras) gives more and more diffraction softening.
Brian v.

Thanks, Brian

I certainly would rarely use f16 and almost never f22 set on the lens. Out of interest, I have always been curious about the blue marking on f16 on the aperture ring my Kiron 105mm, and I just checked the manufacturer's specifications. To my surprise, they actually advise against a wider aperture for its highest magnification and I assume that the optics were designed accordingly. (OK, this was well before the digital age and issues of pixel-originated diffraction).

This does not negate that, because of the laws of physics, the smaller the (effective) aperture, the more diffraction there will be. Certainly, stacking is the ultimate answer, and the PC being built for me will have a specific capacity for deep stacks. However, I will probably stick with single frame, small aperture operation for active subjects. I have no problem with moderating diffraction with specialised software but now I rarely do that specifically as a single task.

Harold